Tuesday, May 8, 2007

UWO Gazette News Editor Cigdem Iltan has a bizarre letter in today's Free Press. I excerpt the whole thing since it will vanish from the Free Press website anon:

Ribbons on police cars send a poor message

It's recently come to my attention a number of London police service vehicles are sporting yellow magnetic Support Our Troops ribbons.

I have no objection to civilian vehicles displaying political messages. However, I do object to a blatant violation of the Police Services Act.

The act states that LPS is "committed to conduct all investigations with fairness and impartiality." The ribbon found on many police vehicles indicates LPS has aligned with one specific side of an extremely hotly contested political debate.

Complete impartiality in any situation is admittedly difficult to achieve. However, for LPS to so obviously commit itself to this particular political cause baffles me. Impartiality refers not only to race, colour, sex, age, or sexual orientation, to name a few. Impartiality involves a conscious, active and self-evaluative effort to weigh all opinions equally.

As an aside, this ("impartiality") was in former, wiser times, known as "being an idiot". I say this without rancor, in the strictly medical and descriptive meaning of someone who is incapable of deploying concepts in such a way as to reach a reasonable conclusion.

And notice that if this kind of mindlessness is truly a value, then the denial of this mindlessness is equally a value -- for who is impartial ol' Cigdan to partially complain about my opinion that his version of impartiality is the pure creed of the double-talking weasel?

It involves the ability to make judgments free from bias and discrimination -- which includes political views.

Fairness and impartiality cannot be achieved by officers wearing either their own or their employer's political affiliations on their sleeves. Not only is it now impossible to attain impartiality, but it appears the LPS is not even trying.

Cigdem Iltan

Cheering on and encouraging our troops as they kill Taliban murderers (more, faster, please!) does not imply a political affiliation -- if one considers oneself Canadian, that is.

And even if one is on the other side -- as one presumably is if one professes the virtue of indifference between Canadians and Taliban -- one must agree that retrofitting Taliban terrorists with new holes is a carbon-friendly means of supplying needed nutrients to Mother Earth and reducing the carbon footprint of the religious fascist community. Surely we can agree that the smallest steps towards saving the planet may sometimes dovetail with steps towards saving the victims of Islamofascism?

7
comments:

The police having a "We Support our Troops" sticker on cop cruisers isn't expressing a particular political ideology or trying to intimidate anti-war activists. The sticker is only a method of expressing support from one non-civilian entity (police) for the dedication and hard work that another non-civilian entity (military) does on a daily basis.

This expression of support is irregardless of what that military mission involves, whether it be peacekeeping, disaster relief, or a combat role.

This Gazette editor jumps to the faulty conclusion that the sticker implies a hidden agenda of the police force: that the sticker is a method of intimidating those who may not agree with the combat role of our troops in Afghanistan.

This implication that our local law enforcement has become a propagandist vehicle for a particular political ideology is reminiscent of countries that are run by a dictator. Last time I checked, we democratically elected our political leaders.

If this socialist Gazette editor wants to see a real police state in action, I suggest a trip to North Korea or Venezuela where she can see how civilians are treated if they express disagreement towards their political leaders.

Man, was your parents killed by a carbon footprint or something? Give it a rest. Not every person who disagrees with government policies is a 'tree hugging' socialist terrorist. That's a rather black and white way of looking at the world, don't you think? After all, YOU disagree with certain government policies...does that make you an tree hugging hippie anti-Canadian terrorist?

'The ribbon found on many police vehicles indicates LPS has aligned with one specific side of an extremely hotly contested political debate."-Cigdem Iltan

Hotly contested? Guess what Cigdem, you have Canadian solidiers who are trying to bring a semblance of democracy to the armpit of the middle east, and you have the taliban who want them dead, and everyone else who doesn't want to live under their reign of terror. There is no contest here, our Canadian soldiers are morally superior.

This Gazette editor is obviously on the left wing of the political spectrum. I never said anyone opposing the government is a socialist--I said that someone who accuses the police of having a biased or hidden "pro war" agenda because they support the military's work is obviously on the left. Big difference.

Sorry if you hate black or white political issues, but which side you sit on the political spectrum is detrimental to the way the lines have been drawn in the sand for either supporting or opposing the war. I don't hear anyone in the NDP expressing any ambiguity towards their stance on the war.

It wasn't that long ago that the UWO Gazette was having a new asshole ripped for degrading females by glorifying rape. I suppose they have that in common with the taliban, and perhaps that is why they sympathize with them.

I am no big fan of the chief Faulkner, but I heard him on the radio this morning, and he did ok with this issue. The best line he used, was from one of his men, who stated, "if you can't get behind our troops, then get in front of them." That about sums it up for me. We know that is never going to happen. You would be hard pressed to find anyone on the left that doesn't have sneaky coward tattoted on their ass. Oh well someone has to protect them, it might as well be the right.